As you may know, Martin Orford of IQ is very unhappy of the tag allocated to the music he plays with IQ or Jadis, and in general to the prog rock scene that arose in the early eighties. He would prefer his music to be labeled "New Wave of Progressive Rock" as he feels offended when the press qualified the bands of the late nineties as "genuine" progressive rock (beacause of the use of vintage keyboards) as opposed to the "neo" progressive rock scene (due to the use of modern keyboards or electronic drums).

In film, think of Italian Neo-realism, or the French New Wave. Today there's nothing "new" about the films of, say, Rossellini or Godard. But the tag stuck, denoting a historical period, as well as a kind of genre (i.e. not all post-war Italian films are considered Neorealist; not all 60s French films are considered a part of the Nouvelle vague).

So I say, keep the Neo-Prog label. :-)

and

Gerinski wrote:

Seeing your avatar, is this really your other car? you lucky b*t

No, its a '78 Corvette that contains Close to the Edge, Fragile, Selling England, Meddle, Low Spark, The Yes Album, and Thick As A Brick 8 track tapes. Even though I have not convinced my Father to let me drive it, I have stocked it with my own personal music collection.

All genre names are made-up by someone, very rarely by the bands themselves and often a long time after the style first came to light. Crossover Prog does not exist, we made it up, same for Eclectic Prog, we made that up too. According to Orford Neo Prog was coined sometime in the early 90s (and I agree with him), if it was ever known as NWoBPR then my guess is that was only in Sounds (or perhaps Kerrang!!), BUT Neo Prog is the name by which it is known - changing it would be revisionist, it would not be helpful.

Neo Prog is a noun, it no longer has a literal meaning and that's okay, we do that all the time: Neoclassicism began in the 18th Century - it's not new any more; the Neolithic era ended 4000 years ago - no one is complaining that the name should be changed because it's not new any more.

Changing the name will not remove the pejorative connotation nor will it change any associations within the subgenre.

And I will disagree with you, a rare instance. Changing it, or naming it neo, in the first place was revisionist. Changing it back would be corrective.

I intend over the weekend to round up the comments I made in the debate started on the Improve The Site thread re sub-genres, so it is possibly best if I left it there, except to say that I first heard of Marillion via Sounds, and went to see them at The Marquee on the back of the article, which described them as a Genesis and post punk influenced band. Not a neo band, as you rightly say.

I have always considered IQ as Phase II Symphonic Progressive Rock, then you get Flower Kings - Phase III Symphonic progressive Rock - soon we'll be in Phase IV............

Yep, absolutely. The "neo" movement was, in fact, the second wave of prog. TFK are the best known of the third wave, which differed from the previous two, in that it was predominantly outside of the UK.

I am looking forward to phase four. It will be different. It will be challenging. It will be exciting. And, of course, because it will not be "classic" symphonic prog, we will have to invent a whole new sub-genre to fit them in. Silly.

And, yes, in writing this, I am aware that TFK and Spock's Beard are accepted here as symph.

Why shouldn't we call it New Wave of British Progressive Rock (NWoBPR)? Many of those bands who started the genre labeled as "Neo-Progressive" nowadays (Marillion, Pallas, IQ, Twelfth Night, Pendragon etc.) are UK-based and started c. 1983.

I disagree. Even if it originated in the UK, Neo has clearly distinctive musical features and there are clear Neo bands from other countries, France, Spain, Germany... it's the style and sound what matters.

I agree with you about the distinctive style and sound, but it is the same as with Canterbury Scene (I'm quite sure you know that Canterbury is situated in the southeast of England), a subgenre in which Picchio dal Pozzo, Cos and Supersister are included, and some more.

Why shouldn't we call it New Wave of British Progressive Rock (NWoBPR)? Many of those bands who started the genre labeled as "Neo-Progressive" nowadays (Marillion, Pallas, IQ, Twelfth Night, Pendragon etc.) are UK-based and started c. 1983.

I disagree. Even if it originated in the UK, Neo has clearly distinctive musical features and there are clear Neo bands from other countries, France, Spain, Germany... it's the style and sound what matters.

I agree with you about the distinctive style and sound, but it is the same as with Canterbury Scene (I'm quite sure you know that Canterbury is situated in the southeast of England), a subgenre in which Picchio dal Pozzo, Cos and Supersister are included, and some more.

The Canterbury Scene referred to a specific set of artists who emanated from, erm, Canterbury at that time, and was, actually, referred to as such at the time.

That sub-genre should not have accepted any new bands since circa 1976, for the simple reason that no new bands from Canterbury with that particular mindset have started since then. Any Canterbury "copyists", or influenced bands would, surely, belong in Neo? Certainly so, given that we do not accept neo as being a wholly symphonic sub-genre?

I find I quite enjoy some of the newer Neo releases, when I have time to listen. It's sad that any band would be ashamed of a genre classification. It's little more than a way to categorize groups so that people have an easier time finding what they're looking for.

I also don't like it when fans of other genres ridicule the Neo....there are surely fans of Neo here who shouldn't have to feel funny about it because other forum users mock the music they like. Just my 2 cents.

As far as I'm concerned, it's all in good fun. I've heard just about every brand of comment under the sun about my favorites, and I must say people can get creative...I think a little healthy rivalry never hurt anyone.

Change the name of the genre or don't change the name. It still is what it is. There's still only one Neo-Prog album so far that I like, and that's the Script, fantastic album as far as I'm concerned. On the other hand, I cringe all the way through Misplaced Childhood, if I can even make it through it. For anyone whose tastes differ the point is the same. I don't think changing the name of the genre will matter a hill of beans as to how much people will like it.

I have personally never understood this argument that using old keys makes you a 70s prog rock wannabe.

Using a Mellotron M400 for choirs is as much Genesis ripoff as using 12-string guitars, I don't even see how you can debate that. It simply IS so. And don't tell me the Mellotron had a more characteristic sound than a 12-string guitar, I won't buy that as it simply isn't true.

Using whatever gear you like in order to reproduce a similar sound to that of Genesis/Crimson/Yes or whatever, is of course not original at all though. It's not the gear that defines your style, it's your songwriting and playing.

Therefore, I would further argue that to "re-invent" prog one does not have to change the gear around, in fact that could end up being as uninventive as possible if you lack original song ideas. If you do have original song ideas then your worries are over, you WILL sound original. For me this discussion really is as simple as that. The only addition would be that some song ideas require some gear (Peter Gabriels "Melt" would have been tricky without a reverb unit ^^) so of course the gear defines the style in a way. But I think that you can complete an idea using various gear and the end result will still be as original as in any other gear configuration.

Good thoughts!

One of the most creative things I'd seen in ages was Bob Fripp's use of guitar synth during the "Thrak" show in Chicago....he used his Fernandes-made black Les Paul copy to trigger Mellotron samples! It was quite remarkable.

So, was that "neo-Prog," or "classical Prog"? As someone said, I also hate labels. Good music is good music.

for me neo was just a style of prog that was more emotionally grounded and less 'flowery'. However its often thought of as a watered down version of 'real' prog which is wht Orford doesn't like the term. That said the bands were not as talented as the ELP's and Genesis and Yes's of the world. They had to establish themselves but certainly played on the nostalgia associated with prog. About 1983 there was a revival in proper bands generally as people got fed up with MTV mass produced pop where the producers were more important than the so called bands.

the supposed re birth of 'real' prog in the 90's as already stated came from Scandanavia but more specifically Par Lindh who formed the Swedish Art Rock Society. I think it also gained a little bit more momentum from the emergence of Radiohead who were suddenly labelled ''Prog'' from nowhere.I think it shocked them but I remember at the time it brought prog much more into the mainstream.One popular publication (Daily Mail I think) even directly compared Radiohead to Yes and Pink Floyd ho ho.

Back tracking slightly , IQ themselves adapted their music when they released Ever in 1993. That was almost a re birth of neo prog in my eyes. Neo prog evolved as a style and as already mentioned most of the bands associated with it are not creating the same style of music nowadays.

Orford is being a tiny bit hypocritical. The connection between Harvest Of Souls and Suppers Ready is very obvious even if apparently only two people are not able to see it! At the time he was upset that IQ didn't get due credit for making such an expansive work. I guess it may have contributed to his retirement but he shouldn't and needn't be so sensitive imo.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum